The problem and the Singapore response
A blockchain transfer cannot be reversed by the sender, by the recipient's bank or by a court. Once a transaction is confirmed, the only ways to undo its effect are to persuade the recipient to send the assets back or to obtain an order against the recipient or against someone who now holds the assets or their proceeds. Singapore has become one of the more effective jurisdictions for the second route, for three reasons. Its courts grant interim proprietary and freezing relief quickly, including against defendants who cannot be named. Several of the largest exchanges have Singapore operations against which disclosure orders can be made. And the courts have accepted that crypto assets are property, so that the full equitable toolkit of constructive trust and tracing is available. This chapter sets out that toolkit in the order in which a practitioner uses it, from the first hours after a loss to the enforcement of a final judgment.
The cases divide into four fact patterns. The first is theft by an outsider who obtains the private key, as in CLM v CLN, where the thief learned the owner's safe combination.1 The second is misappropriation by an insider with access to the system that controls transfers, as in ByBit v Ho Kai Xin.2 The third is the induced transfer, where the victim sends assets voluntarily to a fraudster posing as an investment platform, a romantic partner or a tax authority. The fourth is the mistaken transfer to the wrong address or in the wrong amount, which involves no dishonesty at all. The causes of action differ across the four, but the interim remedies and the tracing exercise are much the same.
Notes
- CLM v CLN and others [2022] SGHC 46 at [17]–[20]. ↩
- ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin and others [2023] SGHC 199 at [7]–[12]. ↩
For general information only. This article does not constitute legal or tax advice, does not replace advice on an individual case and creates no lawyer-client relationship. It reflects the legal position as of October 2026.